THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NIKULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28163/17 and 3 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 October 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nikulin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. As regards application no. 44441/19, the Court would like to stress that this is the second application lodged by Mr Maslov concerning one and the same lengthy pre-trial detention. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and made an award in respect of the first application (no. 5662/18) lodged by Mr Maslov on 3 January 2018 on account of his unreasonably long pre-trial detention from 8 July 2015 to 27 June 2019 (see Tseboyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32041/17 and 7 others, 27 June 2019). As regards the period subsequent to the one examined by the Court in the said judgment, the domestic courts continued the examination of the criminal case against the applicant who remained in detention pending trial until 6 April 2020, in which respect Mr Maslov lodged the present application with the Court on 8 August 2019.
9. While the Court has no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted in the domestic legal order to put an end to the violations found in its judgment in the first case brought by the applicant, it may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period from 27 June 2019 to 6 April 2020 for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court “can take into consideration the fact that an applicant has previously spent time in custody pending trial” (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012; and, for similar approach, Kolosyuk and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 45162/13 and 4 others, 14 June 2018). Accordingly, the Court has competence to entertain Mr Maslov’s complaint.
10. As regards all the applications in the present case, the Court notes that in the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012), it has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. In applications nos. 12239/18 and 44441/19, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov, cited above, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and conditions of transport during detention).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In application no. 28163/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017 and Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 2017) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 28163/17 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 October 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/examined appeal
Length of detention
Specific defects
Other complaints
under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
28163/17
17/03/2017
Denis Stanislavovich NIKULIN
1979
08/11/2015 to
14/02/2017
Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region,
Leningrad Regional Court
1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding
1,400
12239/18
28/02/2018
Denis Igorevich BAKHOLDIN
1981
Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
Moscow
09/03/2017 to
24/12/2018
Suzemskiy District Court of Bryansk;
Bryansk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)
Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 06/12/2017 reviewed on 11/01/2018
2,600
40977/18
21/08/2018
Rostislav Aleksandrovich MALAKHOV
1993
07/03/2017 to
10/10/2019
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding
2,800
44441/19
08/08/2019
Mikhail Vladimirovich MASLOV
1978
27/06/2019 to
06/04/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk,
Lipetsk Regional Court
9 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Multiple transfers to the court hearings between 02/10/2018 and 06/04/2020; van, transit cell, 0.3 sq. m of personal space, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air
1,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.